* Police recommended charges. Two people to be charged with rape, one with rape of a child (he was 18, victim was 16, in Washington 17 is the age of consent) also knew that child porn was filmed and distributed.
* Clyde Hill police couldn't get the video because it was Snapchat. Went to the cyber people at Bellevue police, who also couldn't get it.
* DA's office chose not to press charges. Because this is one of the hardest cases to prove and DAs hate to ruin their stats. Maybe more to this.
* The person filming the video was one of two people in the cab of the truck, and was allegedly an Eastside Catholic football player. Out of the two people in the cab only one was an Eastside Catholic player. We now know who that was.
QUESTIONS:
* How could they have not recovered the video? If CP distribution was involved, why did they not contact the FBI or someone more qualified than the Bellevue PD? Also, if other people saw the video including the kid they interviewed, that is no longer hearsay.
* Why wasn't the 18 year old charged, at least with statutory?
* The three football players who signed with "prestigious universities" - who could that be? We know 1/3. We're also told its not Ohio State. Where else have Eastside players signed from the 2019 or 2020 classes, prestigious school or not? That I was able to find, including walk-ons: Cal, Washington, Portland State 2x, Idaho State, UCLA 2x, Western Oregon, Air Force. I looked up walk-ons as well since I'm guessing the writer may not be familiar with the intricacies of teen boy stalking.
It is good that the police actually investigated and recommended charges, but I'm getting a bit of a Keystone Cops vibe. And a DA who didn't want to file charges, citing lack of evidence that would make them have to work.
2020:
Stanford, Cal, OSU, UW and PSU (x2)
2019 doesn't count since the article specifically states all three are still attending EC.
Where did you see that the person filming was in the truck? That was my initial assumption but given that Hector is specifically stated to be a witness I came around to thinking it must have been one of the guys in the truck bed doing the raping.
I missed the part where it said all three were still students at EC in 2019, but you're right. It's still a bit opaque to me if that includes the witness in the cab.
"The Eastside Catholic players remained on the team and went on to win another state championship title in 2019. The three males who still attend the school also obtained scholarships to play football at prestigious universities."
"Two other teenagers, including another Eastside Catholic standout player, watched from inside the cab."
"Police heard another version of the story from the two witnesses inside the truck’s cab. According to documents, the witness who attends Eastside Catholic said the teenage girl was a willing participant and “the initiator.” The second witness inside the truck was an athlete from another high school in the Bellevue area."
So we had two people inside the cab. In the part of the police report the Palo Alto Daily Post released it was said by those who saw the video who was filming and doing the asking but not clear if it was the same person doing both. That same person is also the one from the cab who submitted a 9 page statement from his attorney and was given limited immunity. I would assume the limited immunity was in relation to the assault and not the CP.
From the PA Post:
"“(Redacted) and Ayden were filming the incident and asked the girl if she ‘was ok/was having fun,’” reads that student’s statement. She said the video was sent to a football groupchat and many of her friends had seen it."
Archived version of that article, which has some minor inconsistencies compared to the KING5 report: http://archive.li/S3v2d
Thanks that is helpful.
Would also make more sense as to why Stanford took action.
The other part of the article that is opaque due to poor writing is whether Ayden is included in the three males that still attend EC and have scholarships to attend prestigious D1 universities. Because if not, there are only three other options IMO and that would conflict with the other statement at the end of the article regarding a certain someone.
* Why wasn't the 18 year old charged, at least with statutory? .
I'm not up to speed on these laws as I was back in the day, though it was my understanding that while 17 was age of consent, that is the general age for the majority of cases. The only exception would be if there's less than a 2yr age difference. So I would assume that if they're w/in the age gap, that's why no statutory.
But even so, it should still constitute possession of child porn and more than likely distribution of child porn. This whole ordeal seems to have a lot of holes in the story. Keystone cops sounds apt.
* Police recommended charges. Two people to be charged with rape, one with rape of a child (he was 18, victim was 16, in Washington 17 is the age of consent) also knew that child porn was filmed and distributed.
* Clyde Hill police couldn't get the video because it was Snapchat. Went to the cyber people at Bellevue police, who also couldn't get it.
* DA's office chose not to press charges. Because this is one of the hardest cases to prove and DAs hate to ruin their stats. Maybe more to this.
* The person filming the video was one of two people in the cab of the truck, and was allegedly an Eastside Catholic football player. Out of the two people in the cab only one was an Eastside Catholic player. We now know who that was.
QUESTIONS:
* How could they have not recovered the video? If CP distribution was involved, why did they not contact the FBI or someone more qualified than the Bellevue PD? Also, if other people saw the video including the kid they interviewed, that is no longer hearsay.
* Why wasn't the 18 year old charged, at least with statutory?
* The three football players who signed with "prestigious universities" - who could that be? We know 1/3. We're also told its not Ohio State. Where else have Eastside players signed from the 2019 or 2020 classes, prestigious school or not? That I was able to find, including walk-ons: Cal, Washington, Portland State 2x, Idaho State, UCLA 2x, Western Oregon, Air Force. I looked up walk-ons as well since I'm guessing the writer may not be familiar with the intricacies of teen boy stalking.
It is good that the police actually investigated and recommended charges, but I'm getting a bit of a Keystone Cops vibe. And a DA who didn't want to file charges, citing lack of evidence that would make them have to work.
2020:
Stanford, Cal, OSU, UW and PSU (x2)
2019 doesn't count since the article specifically states all three are still attending EC.
Where did you see that the person filming was in the truck? That was my initial assumption but given that Hector is specifically stated to be a witness I came around to thinking it must have been one of the guys in the truck bed doing the raping.
I missed the part where it said all three were still students at EC in 2019, but you're right. It's still a bit opaque to me if that includes the witness in the cab.
"The Eastside Catholic players remained on the team and went on to win another state championship title in 2019. The three males who still attend the school also obtained scholarships to play football at prestigious universities."
"Two other teenagers, including another Eastside Catholic standout player, watched from inside the cab."
"Police heard another version of the story from the two witnesses inside the truck’s cab. According to documents, the witness who attends Eastside Catholic said the teenage girl was a willing participant and “the initiator.” The second witness inside the truck was an athlete from another high school in the Bellevue area."
So we had two people inside the cab. In the part of the police report the Palo Alto Daily Post released it was said by those who saw the video who was filming and doing the asking but not clear if it was the same person doing both. That same person is also the one from the cab who submitted a 9 page statement from his attorney and was given limited immunity. I would assume the limited immunity was in relation to the assault and not the CP.
From the PA Post:
"“(Redacted) and Ayden were filming the incident and asked the girl if she ‘was ok/was having fun,’” reads that student’s statement. She said the video was sent to a football groupchat and many of her friends had seen it."
Archived version of that article, which has some minor inconsistencies compared to the KING5 report: http://archive.li/S3v2d
Thanks that is helpful.
Would also make more sense as to why Stanford took action.
The other part of the article that is opaque due to poor writing is whether Ayden is included in the three males that still attend EC and have scholarships to attend prestigious D1 universities. Because if not, there are only three other options IMO and that would conflict with the other statement at the end of the article regarding a certain someone.
I read that as being pretty cut and dry that Hector is one of the three. I think we can safely assume who #2 was.
The identity of #3 would either be our guy or JTT. Both appear rather unlikely. Maybe a more realistic conclusion is that the writer of the King 5 article was sloppy as hell and included PSU in their list of "prestigious universities".
Hopefully the Times gets their hands on the report and starts naming names so we can through the ambiguity.
* Why wasn't the 18 year old charged, at least with statutory? .
I'm not up to speed on these laws as I was back in the day, though it was my understanding that while 17 was age of consent, that is the general age for the majority of cases. The only exception would be if there's less than a 2yr age difference. So I would assume that if they're w/in the age gap, that's why no statutory.
But even so, it should still constitute possession of child porn and more than likely distribution of child porn. This whole ordeal seems to have a lot of holes in the story. Keystone cops sounds apt.
Actually, I was wrong and you're partially right - it's 16 in Washington as long as the other person isn't more than 60 months older, so a 21 year old and a 16 year old is okay. Romeo and Juliet laws. The girl was 16 then, although the Palo Alto one said 15. Damn, Washington - you've got some weird consent laws. Way more lax than Oregon or California. A 14 year old and an 18 year old are okay if the difference is less than 48 months.
It would be nice if a competent investigative journalist took this on.
FWIW, about snapchat deleting videos : this isn't necessarily true.
For those of you who don't know, there's a "snap" feature, to directly send pics and vids just taken, and a "chat" feature, to send messages or pics and videos from the camera roll.
"Snaps" automatically delete. "Chats," however, can be saved, both within snapchat AND onto the camera roll of any people receiving or sending the chat.
For the video to be as widespread as it was, it was sent through the chat feature, meaning that it was at some point saved onto multiple camera rolls. This can be inferred because students at other schools viewed the video, meaning that it left the group chat it was initially sent to, so it had to have been saved to the camera roll to be sent in another group chat.
In other words, it is fucking astonishing that the police have failed to get their hands on this video, and it is also likely that with renewed interest in this case they are able to do so.
FWIW, about snapchat deleting videos : this isn't necessarily true.
For those of you who don't know, there's a "snap" feature, to directly send pics and vids just taken, and a "chat" feature, to send messages or pics and videos from the camera roll.
"Snaps" automatically delete. "Chats," however, can be saved, both within snapchat AND onto the camera roll of any people receiving or sending the chat.
For the video to be as widespread as it was, it was sent through the chat feature, meaning that it was at some point saved onto multiple camera rolls. This can be inferred because students at other schools viewed the video, meaning that it left the group chat it was initially sent to, so it had to have been saved to the camera roll to be sent in another group chat.
In other words, it is fucking astonishing that the police have failed to get their hands on this video, and it is also likely that with renewed interest in this case they are able to do so.
So essentially, yes this happened, it would likely be constituted as a gang rape, but because the police are so incompetent they couldn't get their hands on a video that was circulated all over several high schools, the perps get to walk and to claim it never happened.
So essentially, yes this happened, it would likely be constituted as a gang rape, but because the police are so incompetent they couldn't get their hands on a video that was circulated all over several high schools, the perps get to walk and to claim it never happened.
FWIW, about snapchat deleting videos : this isn't necessarily true.
For those of you who don't know, there's a "snap" feature, to directly send pics and vids just taken, and a "chat" feature, to send messages or pics and videos from the camera roll.
"Snaps" automatically delete. "Chats," however, can be saved, both within snapchat AND onto the camera roll of any people receiving or sending the chat.
For the video to be as widespread as it was, it was sent through the chat feature, meaning that it was at some point saved onto multiple camera rolls. This can be inferred because students at other schools viewed the video, meaning that it left the group chat it was initially sent to, so it had to have been saved to the camera roll to be sent in another group chat.
In other words, it is fucking astonishing that the police have failed to get their hands on this video, and it is also likely that with renewed interest in this case they are able to do so.
FWIW, about snapchat deleting videos : this isn't necessarily true.
For those of you who don't know, there's a "snap" feature, to directly send pics and vids just taken, and a "chat" feature, to send messages or pics and videos from the camera roll.
"Snaps" automatically delete. "Chats," however, can be saved, both within snapchat AND onto the camera roll of any people receiving or sending the chat.
For the video to be as widespread as it was, it was sent through the chat feature, meaning that it was at some point saved onto multiple camera rolls. This can be inferred because students at other schools viewed the video, meaning that it left the group chat it was initially sent to, so it had to have been saved to the camera roll to be sent in another group chat.
In other words, it is fucking astonishing that the police have failed to get their hands on this video, and it is also likely that with renewed interest in this case they are able to do so.
Everytime I see this title I instantly want to insert the word butt before stuff. Then it makes me think of the parody video of the catholic girls taking it in the butt. Feel free to post said video @Emoterman or @PurpleThrobber and get all my chins.
Everytime I see this title I instantly want to insert the word butt before stuff. Then it makes me think of the parody video of the catholic girls taking it in the butt. Feel free to post said video @Emoterman or @PurpleThrobber and get all my chins.
THE parody video thereof? My mind reels at what you might be referring to, this obvious reference. This comes to mind:
But, I mean, Catholic girls getting their roundins pounded is almost like it's own genre of erotic filmography. I'm fascinated to see how I've been whooshed!
Everytime I see this title I instantly want to insert the word butt before stuff. Then it makes me think of the parody video of the catholic girls taking it in the butt. Feel free to post said video @Emoterman or @PurpleThrobber and get all my chins.
THE parody video thereof? My mind reels at what you might be referring to, this obvious reference. This comes to mind:
But, I mean, Catholic girls getting their roundins pounded is almost like it's own genre of erotic filmography. I'm fascinated to see how I've been whooshed!
So essentially, yes this happened, it would likely be constituted as a gang rape, but because the police are so incompetent they couldn't get their hands on a video that was circulated all over several high schools, the perps get to walk and to claim it never happened.
Yup. Rogers, Hector and Adams will all look great at ASU or Oregon State after a one year stint at Last Chance U. Hell, Smith might take them all with the baggage anyway. He just needs talent any way he can get it.
Comments
Would also make more sense as to why Stanford took action.
The other part of the article that is opaque due to poor writing is whether Ayden is included in the three males that still attend EC and have scholarships to attend prestigious D1 universities. Because if not, there are only three other options IMO and that would conflict with the other statement at the end of the article regarding a certain someone.
But even so, it should still constitute possession of child porn and more than likely distribution of child porn. This whole ordeal seems to have a lot of holes in the story. Keystone cops sounds apt.
The identity of #3 would either be our guy or JTT. Both appear rather unlikely. Maybe a more realistic conclusion is that the writer of the King 5 article was sloppy as hell and included PSU in their list of "prestigious universities".
Hopefully the Times gets their hands on the report and starts naming names so we can through the ambiguity.
It would be nice if a competent investigative journalist took this on.
For those of you who don't know, there's a "snap" feature, to directly send pics and vids just taken, and a "chat" feature, to send messages or pics and videos from the camera roll.
"Snaps" automatically delete. "Chats," however, can be saved, both within snapchat AND onto the camera roll of any people receiving or sending the chat.
For the video to be as widespread as it was, it was sent through the chat feature, meaning that it was at some point saved onto multiple camera rolls. This can be inferred because students at other schools viewed the video, meaning that it left the group chat it was initially sent to, so it had to have been saved to the camera roll to be sent in another group chat.
In other words, it is fucking astonishing that the police have failed to get their hands on this video, and it is also likely that with renewed interest in this case they are able to do so.
Update from the deputy prosecutor who declined to file charges.
https://www.metacafe.com/watch/834773/catholic_high_school_girls_in_trouble/
But, I mean, Catholic girls getting their roundins pounded is almost like it's own genre of erotic filmography. I'm fascinated to see how I've been whooshed!
https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/high-school/star-football-players-a-declined-prosecution-accusations-continue-to-haunt-eastside-catholic/